AuthorTopic: Medium format and the Billboard Myth (Read 17883 times)

Just to point it out, a 16-bit ADC in the analog front end (AFE) used in CCD capture is not hard to come by. TI has 14 different models capable of this that are active parts. While I doubt any MFDB manufacturer talks about who they sourced their AFE from, they can easily acquire a 16-bit converter if inclined to do so.

Please note, I am not saying that 16-bit converters are being used. Merely that 16-bit converters are readily available should they want to use them. I don't have a clue if any particular company actually does.

Well, as someone who has recently bought in to MFD, having used Canon 1Ds (all of them), 5DII, Pentax 67, Fotoman 617 professionally for 10 years, I have been stunned by the difference between 35mm and MFD. I really did not expect this. Initially it was for more Mpixels, but the thing that has stood out most is how much more realistic and life-like the COLOURS are. In addition, the excellence of technical cameras and Capture One software (reducing post-processing) makes shooting a different, and for me a much more pleasurable, experience.

I'll still use the Canons for some things - esp. low light, or quick grab shots - but I'm finding I really want those colours from the P45+.

I tried the D800 recently and I can see that there are many advantages to it, including the very useable resolution, dynamic range and high ISO. But the colours were similar to the 5DII - just flat somehow. Perfectly good for most uses, just not what I want to work with.

Although the thought of Bernard with a Canon makes some of us wonder whether the pope will convert to islam next ...

Good one!

But to set things straight, I am a Canon customer already. I liked their G10 and S90 and used them because they were best in class. No I have replaced them with a Sony that is superior. I also used a Canon camcorder until recently. I have also shot with cameras from Hasselblad (H1 + film), Mamiya (ZD), ricoh and Pentax.

In the DSLR world they have a few appealing lenses like the 17mm T/S, maybe the 24mm T/S, 70-200 f2.8 and f4 but for the rest I believe that Nikon is either ahead (bodies) or at the same level.

I would have given a serious thought to Phaseone and Leaf had the overall performance/cost ratio been more favorable.

See a pattern? I choose my equipment carefully and always go for the best I can afford. I would definitely have bought a Canon 1Ds2 at the time if I had been able to afford one. I really am totally brand agnostic and don't see why sharing my positive experience with the D3x/D800 makes me a fanboy because those cameras simply were/are factually superior.

If Canon were to release a body offering significant value I would definitely consider it. I am not connected with Nikon in any way.

...I find your comments very unhelpful and since your over processed work with your low end cameras does not attract me, and you are not an engineer that develops this 16-bit technologies, and have no real proof to show that this MFDB companies are lying on their websites, I will just go ahead and ignore your comments.

I don't know who in the world are you, or what are your qualifications to make statements like this:"MFDB industry depends on peddling myths like that." That is absolutely absurd and even offensive.

Whether you like the delivery of the message or not, he is correct. And this one is on the "do the math" level. God, how many years has this one been discussed just around here. There are no cameras made today that have 16 bits of data per pixel. None. You will be lucky to get 14 good bits per pixel.

What advantages you can gain from an MFDB are typically more in the mid-tone gradations and only when working at (downsampled) print sizes. This isn't a matter of per-pixel response, but the ability to average an abundance of photons over a print area. But even when you are working at print sizes, you still aren't up to the 16-bit per pixel level of dynamic range.

One other thing that Slobodan is right about is that MFDB manufacturers have been pushing the 16 bit myth casually for years. They've been called out on it numerous times here, and sides taken to protect commercial interests. Stick around for a few years, and you will see it all play out again.

I would just add that it is quite possible that MFDBs have more orthogonal color filters. That is a design choice by Kodak, Dalsa and possibly MFDB manufacturers. If you need high ISO less orthogonal filters are advantageous. It has been said that Sony sensors may be more oriented to good color than high ISO. On the other hand some overlap is probably needed to reproduce subtle shifts of color.

MFDBs have some advantage related to the larger size of the sensor. They collect more photons (or to be exact electron charges) which reduces noise in lighter parts of the image. The larger sensor is also making less demands on the lens. So no question an MF camera will produce a smoother image with better detail under optimum conditions, like repro using tripod and optimum aperture and best available lens.

What I don't understand is why MFDB vendors don't publish correct unbiased comparison images from MFDB compared to state of the art DSLRs?

Whether you like the delivery of the message or not, he is correct. And this one is on the "do the math" level. God, how many years has this one been discussed just around here. There are no cameras made today that have 16 bits of data per pixel. None. You will be lucky to get 14 good bits per pixel.

What advantages you can gain from an MFDB are typically more in the mid-tone gradations and only when working at (downsampled) print sizes. This isn't a matter of per-pixel response, but the ability to average an abundance of photons over a print area. But even when you are working at print sizes, you still aren't up to the 16-bit per pixel level of dynamic range.

One other thing that Slobodan is right about is that MFDB manufacturers have been pushing the 16 bit myth casually for years. They've been called out on it numerous times here, and sides taken to protect commercial interests. Stick around for a few years, and you will see it all play out again.

"What I don't understand is why MFDB vendors don't publish correct unbiased comparison images from MFDB compared to state of the art DSLRs?"

You are starting to sound like Fred... Why should they? MFDB dealers and makers offer their kits on loan to serious potential buyers for free. Is that not enough? Are you another one of the many MFDB antagonists that never used one themselves?

Do DSLR manufacturers publish comparison images? Can you get a free test of a new DSLR? Why do you care? Would knowing the answer to any of the questions in this or the other thread make you choose to buy or shoot differently? is your question only to satisfy some odd curiosity? It seems to matter so little, since there are so many other reasons to consider when choosing a camera.

As Eric suggests, your local MFDB dealer will happily lend you a demo unit for testing if you present yourself as a prospect, then you can test it to your heart's content and publish your unbiased comparisons...

Because it would be in their own best interest? You know, if the advantage is so obvious, why wouldn't you want to show it to the whole world to see? Wouldn't that be your best selling point? After all, they do use words to that effect (like in the latest Hassselbad pamphlet), but isn't a picture worth thousand words?

Or is it yet another case of "only true believers can see it?"

Like in the old joke: a priest/pastor/rabbi/mullah/ asks the audience if they know the story of, say, Prophet X. The response was "No!" in unison. He then embarked on a lengthy diatribe against their ignorance. Next time, after the same question, they responded with, of course, "Yes!" in unison. To which the guy responded with: "Ok then, no need to tell you the story." The third time they really prepared and decided to outsmart the guy, so they answered: "Some of us know, some don't." To which the guy replied: "Ok then, those who know can tell those who do not."

Let's put it this way. I'm an engineer, so I have some scientific schooling. For that reason I'm quite interested in how things work. I don't think it would be easy for me to arrange an unbiased test. I did consider renting MF equipment for a couple of days but that would set me back something like a full frame DSLR here in Sweden.

Also, I would say that making unbiased comparison images would be quite easy to do for any vendor, as they have most equipment in house.

Yes, you are right that I have no experience with MFD, although I have experience with MF and such being a long time Pentax 67. I did consider buying both Mamya ZD and Pentax 645D, but decided against it. The main reasons?

- Money, obviously, I could afford it, but perhaps not justify it- Weight (I often travel by air)- I use zoom, superwides and long teles, so either a big MF kit or DSLR + MF- I don't print that large, normally A2

"What I don't understand is why MFDB vendors don't publish correct unbiased comparison images from MFDB compared to state of the art DSLRs?"

You are starting to sound like Fred... Why should they? MFDB dealers and makers offer their kits on loan to serious potential buyers for free. Is that not enough? Are you another one of the many MFDB antagonists that never used one themselves?

Do DSLR manufacturers publish comparison images? Can you get a free test of a new DSLR? Why do you care? Would knowing the answer to any of the questions in this or the other thread make you choose to buy or shoot differently? is your question only to satisfy some odd curiosity? It seems to matter so little, since there are so many other reasons to consider when choosing a camera.

If you make a test shot under identical conditions it will be unbiased unless you "tilt" the conditions thereby introducing bias. Example:

Shooting both cameras at f/8 or optimum aperture doesn't include bias. You get the best result achievable with that system. Using f/16 on both makes both systems to perform sub par, but a DSLR would probably used at f/8 or f/11 under same conditions so a bias is introduced.

Imaging Resource has what I call unbiased tests shots of Pentax 645D and Diglloyd has published some on Pentax 645D, Leica S2, Hasselblad H4D50 and Mamya DL28.

As Eric suggests, your local MFDB dealer will happily lend you a demo unit for testing if you present yourself as a prospect, then you can test it to your heart's content and publish your unbiased comparisons...

Erik and Slobodan,I've posted quite extensive tests here between Canon 5D2 and two MFDB cameras please search for them here on LuLa. There you will see what I have seen for a long while if you would like your curiosity satisfied I will also be posting sometime in the next days my imatest DR tests for D800E vs Aptus 12. You will also have another number to put with the DXO figures that you can play with so then you can spend your time wondering how these tests could be different.

Since it seems clear you will not shoot with one, it hardly matters in actual fact since knowing the truth will not change your shooting or your career. This question will become new again every time a new Canon or Nikon will be introduced and you and many others who never think to purchase a MFDB will once again be curious. It's like Sisyphus trying to satisfy this curiosity . I am really happy to help people by sharing my tests and equipment but mostly I want to help people to achieve their best images for their work or their art, and I am not caring much to just satisfy "curiosity".

Erik and Slobodan,I've posted quite extensive tests here between Canon 5D2 and two MFDB cameras please search for them here on LuLa. There you will see what I have seen for a long while if you would like your curiosity satisfied I will also be posting sometime in the next days my imatest DR tests for D800E vs Aptus 12. You will also have another number to put with the DXO figures that you can play with so then you can spend your time wondering how these tests could be different.

Since it seems clear you will not shoot with one, it hardly matters in actual fact since knowing the truth will not change your shooting or your career. This question will become new again every time a new Canon or Nikon will be introduced and you and many others who never think to purchase a MFDB will once again be curious. It's like Sisyphus trying to satisfy this curiosity . I am really happy to help people by sharing my tests and equipment but mostly I want to help people to achieve their best images for their work or their art, and I am not caring much to just satisfy "curiosity".

If you make a test shot under identical conditions it will be unbiased unless you "tilt" the conditions thereby introducing bias. Example:

Shooting both cameras at f/8 or optimum aperture doesn't include bias. You get the best result achievable with that system. Using f/16 on both makes both systems to perform sub par, but a DSLR would probably used at f/8 or f/11 under same conditions so a bias is introduced.

Imaging Resource has what I call unbiased tests shots of Pentax 645D and Diglloyd has published some on Pentax 645D, Leica S2, Hasselblad H4D50 and Mamya DL28.